Re: The Midland Lofts (formerly Midland Office Building)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:30 pm
Holy run-on sentence!
I 100% agree downtown and visitors would benefit, but I don't think there's much of a debate when it comes to amenity Vs convenience store in this particular instance. Not to mention, if they went light on the amenities in this more affordable housing building, there would be pushback from the local affordable housing advocates claiming those who can only pay $700/month for a downtown apartment deserve amenities too! No premium rent will be paid in this building.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:29 pm Especially for affordable housing I disagree. Having a convenience store with longer hours and convenience store items and mix in some drug store items, way more important than some of the new building amenities that are used to lure in the renter who will pay a premium rent and is wowed by all the fun amenities and rarely uses them.
Downtown and p&l visitors would greatly benefit too.
Yeah, I agree with this and your previous statement. Especially for indoor amenities. People don't really use like indoor lounges. But they look good for leasing.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:07 pm Premium rents come with better amenities, I don't think there is much debate there but yeah I'm sure there would be those comments.
I'd still say a convenience store is easily a valuable amenity that could be pointed to for those comments. Anybody that doesn't think so probably lives in downtown in name only and hops in their car for everything they need.
At both One Light and Two Light, the indoor amenity space is very popular from my experience. The ability to reserve a demo kitchen or multiple areas that are larger and can accommodate more people than your unit is huge. Shit, my wife and I had a baby shower in one of those spaces.WoodDraw wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:21 pmYeah, I agree with this and your previous statement. Especially for indoor amenities. People don't really use like indoor lounges. But they look good for leasing.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:07 pm Premium rents come with better amenities, I don't think there is much debate there but yeah I'm sure there would be those comments.
I'd still say a convenience store is easily a valuable amenity that could be pointed to for those comments. Anybody that doesn't think so probably lives in downtown in name only and hops in their car for everything they need.
It used to be that downtown apartment development was completely different than anything else in the metro. The bottom line was important but the goal was always to bring back the city. Now some of these new apartment plans, downtown and along the streetcar, are the same private pool and pickleball resorts you see along 435 in Johnson County. Is it suburban urbanism or urban suburbanism? Or maybe the JoConication of our downtown.
Organically cheap apartments downtown. Literally not possible.FangKC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:06 pm The other side of this argument is that adding all those amenities increases the cost of the apartments. There is a need for simpler living spaces that lower income residents can afford. Anything new is not going to be as affordable as old apartment buildings. However, we also need new or converted buildings that are more affordable, and will be the cheap apartments downtown in the next decades. I'm talking organically cheap apartments, and not ones that require subsidies to be cheap.
Great point.FangKC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:06 pm The other side of this argument is that adding all those amenities increases the cost of the apartments. There is a need for simpler living spaces that lower income residents can afford. Anything new is not going to be as affordable as old apartment buildings. However, we also need new or converted buildings that are more affordable, and will be the cheap apartments downtown in the next decades. I'm talking organically cheap apartments, and not ones that require subsidies to be cheap.
Agree with you. The location is the amenity. Of course cordiah tells us that's not true but for those of us that lived downtown prior to them we know it's true.Rabble wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:56 pmIt used to be that downtown apartment development was completely different than anything else in the metro. The bottom line was important but the goal was always to bring back the city. Now some of these new apartment plans, downtown and along the streetcar, are the same private pool and pickleball resorts you see along 435 in Johnson County. Is it suburban urbanism or urban suburbanism? Or maybe the JoConication of our downtown.
Have to mention the KCPS HQ building too. Our public entities choosing more money from someone they knew would demolish the building instead of a developer who could build affordable housing leaves us with an empty lot and less people in our core.FangKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:57 am So many older apartment buildings that could have been filling this niche were demolished in the urban renewal craze -- assuming that the parcels would be quickly redeveloped. They weren't. It's among the reasons there is a lack of affordable housing around downtown.
Lol. Luxury apartment buildings “blighting” our downtown. GTFO with that crap. For decades it was mostly income restricted living downtown because only a few people wanted to live here. God forbid billions are spent and higher income earners move into your precious once dilapidated, drug buying and prostitute zone.Rabble wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:02 am Literally not possible?
Ten years ago I would never have imagined the abundance stick built-fake exterior-roof top pool-private party zone crap now beginning to blight our downtown. This stuff works in the suburbs because the suburbs don't have anything else, but not in our downtown. I'm literally disappointed. Downtown is being annexed by Overland Park.
The location is now the amenity because of the development and higher end apartments that people want to rent. Few wanted to live downtown prior to 2009. I’m having a hard time understanding what downtown would look like if your vision or preferred development happened over the last decade.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:55 amAgree with you. The location is the amenity. Of course cordiah tells us that's not true but for those of us that lived downtown prior to them we know it's true.Rabble wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:56 pmIt used to be that downtown apartment development was completely different than anything else in the metro. The bottom line was important but the goal was always to bring back the city. Now some of these new apartment plans, downtown and along the streetcar, are the same private pool and pickleball resorts you see along 435 in Johnson County. Is it suburban urbanism or urban suburbanism? Or maybe the JoConication of our downtown.
Just going to say quality hill towers are complete trash. I guess the shit quality, poor location, crappy parking, antiquated plumbing, paper thin walls and historical lack of upgrades could be classified as organically affordable.FangKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:57 am Quality Hill Towers is an example of organically cheap downtown apartments. Buildings were completed in 1951, so the buildings are 70-years-old.
https://www.qualityhilltowers.com/brochure.aspx
910 Penn tower is another. That building was completed in 1958.
https://www.910penn.com/floorplans
910 Penn was much cheaper at one time, but the prices went up after a renovation.
Downtown might have a lot more affordable options for residents there had say 10 more of these buildings been constructed around the same time as Quality Hill Towers.
The Nottingham Apartments in Crossroads West were built in 1915.
http://westsidehousing.org/findhousing/ ... rtments-2/
So many older apartment buildings that could have been filling this niche were demolished in the urban renewal craze -- assuming that the parcels would be quickly redeveloped. They weren't. It's among the reasons there is a lack of affordable housing around downtown.
I understand you may have this perspective given your alliance with Cordish and downtown "started" in your mind with P&L.,it's just simply not the reality for everyone, especially those who lived down here prior. The location was always the amenity that brought us down here. Cordish and other developers for sure have brought much needed additional amenities that made it a better living situation for many more of our now neighbors.DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:52 amThe location is now the amenity because of the development and higher end apartments that people want to rent. Few wanted to live downtown prior to 2009. I’m having a hard time understanding what downtown would look like if your vision or preferred development happened over the last decade.KCPowercat wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:55 amAgree with you. The location is the amenity. Of course cordiah tells us that's not true but for those of us that lived downtown prior to them we know it's true.Rabble wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:56 pm
It used to be that downtown apartment development was completely different than anything else in the metro. The bottom line was important but the goal was always to bring back the city. Now some of these new apartment plans, downtown and along the streetcar, are the same private pool and pickleball resorts you see along 435 in Johnson County. Is it suburban urbanism or urban suburbanism? Or maybe the JoConication of our downtown.